Is there a war on White people in the US?

Or more specifically, on White working-class men? Or is it just a war on all White men who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton?

Or are all White people in the U.S. being subjected to reverse racism?

From the Federalist: How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism: "White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea."

My note: I'm neither proud nor ashamed of my own "Whiteness". I look in the mirror every day and I just see a familiar face (that happens to be White) and just recognize a person that I've known all my life. My great-grand-father immigrated to the U.S. from Germany and became a farmer; but I don't celebrate by Whiteness or relate in any way to German culture or my Western European heritage. I just think of myself as an American, which has always had a White majority for its population. If I were born Black in the Congo, I might feel the same way. And if I had moved to Rome, I might do as the Romans do. But over the the years I've noticed a lot of anti-White sentiment being spewed by elements within the Democratic Party (who once opposed freeing slaves just prior to my great-grand-father's immigration.)

Looking back at the migration patterns out of Africa throughout the past 60,000 years of human history (if you believe the Earth is older than 8,000 years); and most recently over the past 500 years when the people of Europe migrated to North America, it doesn't appear to be racist to want White people to exist, or to even have a country with borders that is dominated by a White population. Whites are a minority — and could even be an endangered species if you listen to the rhetoric we have today.

The Clinton machine (DNC, media, etc) used "projection" to accuse Trump's supporters of racism and other divisive tactics that they themselves were guilty of to divide people. If if were White Christian Crusaders were raising havoc in the Middle-East today (killing, raping, looting, etc.),  the Democrats would accuse Trump of banning all Christians instead of banning all Muslims. Hillary Clinton, while at a LBGTQ fundraiser, accused half of Trump's supporters of being an "irredeemable basket of deplorables". The Clinton camp accused Senator Bernie Sanders and his supporters of being misogynist and sexist. And the Clinton machine accuses Trump and his supporters of being racist against Latinos for wanting to enforce immigration laws and building a wall (but couldn't have made that claim if all illegal immigrants came from Canada).  The "alt-left" (which is the Democratic party today) uses race and many other social issues to divide people (#BlavckLivesMatter vs #BlueLivesMatter vs #AllLivesMatter). But as Americans of all races, we are more divided by economics — the rich vs the poor, the "haves" vs the "have nots". To say otherwise is a distraction and an old ploy that is always used to divide and conqueror the people.

Over the past 40 years, stocks on the Dow Jones are up almost 1,900% (astronomical gains!) — but amazingly the "median wage" (meaning 50% earn more, 50% earn less) in the U.S. is FLAT when accounting for inflation. That's why you feel like a hamster in a cage on a little wheel, furiously spinning away but getting nowhere, sometimes taking a 2nd job to get a little ahead — and why we've seen a dramatic rise in dual-income households. (Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote about this: The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke).

Stock prices on the Dow Jones for the past 40 years.

The "nominal" median wage for a worker in the U.S. went from $11,479 a year in 1979 to $29,930 a year in 2015. But by using an inflation calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it looks even worse. The median wage should be $38,161 a year in 2016 just to break even --- not $29,930 (* If $29,930 is multiplied by 2 = $59,860 a year --- which is very close to what Sentier Research reported as the current median household income of $58,221 a year.)

The 2016 Presidential Election

If a White man didn't want to continue with Obama's "legacy" (and instead voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton) and had voted for someone they thought would secure their borders and save their jobs, that does NOT automatically make them a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a misogynist, an Islamophobe, a xenophobe, a homophobe, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-women, a White supremacist, a White nationalist, a Nazi or a fascist. If anything, that accusation (in and of itself) sounds a lot like "anti-White" racism. It's not "racist" to want to keep jobs in America or to stop giving them to "guestworkers" from foreign countries who are willing to work for less than the prevailing domestic wage. FYI: Even White people need to eat and put a roof over their family's heads.

Pat Buchanan (May 1, 2008)

"According to the Pew Research Center, the Hispanic population of the United States will triple to 127 million by 2050, as Mexico's population grows to 130 million. An erasure of the U.S. border, or merger of the two countries, or the linguistic, cultural and social annexation of the American Southwest by Mexico appears fated. Yet, last October, in another Pew poll of 45,000 people in 47 countries, a majority in 46 expressed fear of a loss of their traditional culture. Sixty-two percent of Americans told Pew we should do more to protect our way of life. Three-fourths of Americans wanted more restrictions on immigration. Yet all three presidential candidates [Obama, Clinton, McCain] voted amnesty for the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens."

The "working-class" in America is the majority of all workers (61% of all US wage earners make less than $40,000 a year and is comprised of all races); but the working-class is always defined by the media and politicians as the "White" working-class. That's because the majority of the population in the U.S. (77% as of 2015) is still White. Although Whites are still a majority in the U.S. (and Europe, Russia, Canada, South Africa and Australia), it's still a small minority when compared to the rest of the world's population.

In the U.S., men (of all races) were the most displaced when manufacturing jobs were offshored to low-wage countries after Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and gave PNTR to China. Just since 1997 when Clinton was in office, more than 5 million jobs were lost and more than 67,000 factories have closed. While on the campaign trail, Trump often mentioned 70,000 closed factories. While it's true many jobs were lost to automation, many were also lost to child labor, robots and computers in places such as China, Mexico, India, Cambodia, Vietnam (etc.) — countries that have a very tiny population of people of Western European descent (Caucasians as defined in the U.S.)

The continent of Africa could be the next "emerging market" (for cheap labor) if they had adequate infrastructure, less political upheaval (ISIS, etc) and less wars. But would it be "racist" or "Apartheid" to have a country in Africa exclusively populated by black people? It's almost as though some people resent the idea of a country with a White majority population; and that the idea (or the ultimate goal) is to make the population of the U.S. as "diverse" and "all-inclusive" as quickly as possible, until eventually Whites are no longer the majority. Why is this? Do other White-dominate countries have a social movement to make them non-White majorities as well? After all, White are already a minority in the world. Why is there so much anti-Whiteness (including by some Whites) in the U.S.? Very odd, wishing for your own race to be exterminated or watered-down into some type of global "sameness" where everyone in the world in one color, speaking one language, with one culture and no borders.

 The U.S. Labor Force

(Chart below) Of those who are currently NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE, but want a job, there are 5.9 million Americans who are unemployed, but no longer counted as "unemployed" (about the same number of jobs lost after NAFTA and PNTR for China). Currently there are another 7.4 million officially counted as unemployed, not including a total of 95 million not in the labor force (which also includes those on Social Security, those in medical and mental facilities, those who are incarcerated, those who choose not to work, etc).

"Nationalism" is always used by the mainstream media to define many White voters as "White nationalists" (to indicate racism), rather than just plain old-fashion "patriotism" — and is used to criticized people who opposed trade deals that offshore their jobs, calling them "anti-trade" and "protectionists" — as though opposing trade deals that deprive them of their livelihoods makes them bad people. Both Senator Bernie Sanders (a democratic socialist) and Donald Trump (a hybrid-Republican and real estate investor that Hillary Clinton always called a reality TV star) have railed against bad trade deals, saying they preferred "fair trade" and not just "free trade". Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA and was on the record (45 times) supporting the TPP trade agreement and calling it "the gold standard" — a trade deal (just like the pending TTIP and TiSA trade agreements) that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump vehemently opposed. (Currently 1/3 of all U.S. jobs are still prone to offshoring/outsourcing.)

But the Democrats and their "mainstream media" are accusing "Whites" of racism for opposing Hillary Clinton — even though millions of White Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 (and had given up on his "hope and change" message) and instead had supported Trump in 2016. When Bernie Sanders ran against Clinton in the Democratic primary, Sanders was accused of sexism and of being a Socialist. Democrats, the DNC, the Democratic super-delegates and their "mainstream media" had all stubbornly colluded to get Clinton elected — even when all polls had showed Sanders beating Trump — and by wider margins that Hillary Clinton.

But since Clinton lost to Trump, rather than blame themselves for their own stubborn cult-like loyalty to Clinton, they're blaming everyone and everything else EXCEPT themselves for losing the election to Trump (and racism is often mentioned.) Anyone who watched CNN and MSNBC could clearly see the media bias against Sanders and the favoritism that Clinton received. They all saw the narrative the DNC, the Democrats and the medial was pushing to unfairly represent Sanders. And the people who read and watched the mainstream media regularly saw the same bias and favoritism when Clinton ran against Trump — the "Pied Piper candidate" (as exposed by Wikileaks) that the DNC conspired to help get elected, thinking Clinton had a better chance of beating Trump than most other GOP candidates. (At first, the mainstream media play Trump as a fool for the ratings he generated, giving him much free exposure — but then became more and more negative when the possibly grew that he could win the GOP primary; and then grew even more negative while he ran against Clinton in the general election. Everyone who watched and read the mainstream news could clearly see all the media bias*.

* Like the bog who cried "wolf" too often, I worry that if the mainstream ever does have something very significant to report regarding the Trump administration, many people will disregard it as more bias because of their past reporting and bias. Now CNN has gone completely off the rail with fake news. They (the media), just like the Democrats, learned NOTHING from Clinton's loss to Trump.

During the Democratic primary, many Independents and Sanders's supporters began watching more Fox News to get better and more accurate coverage of the race, because CNN and MSNBC was so overtly biased, always having Clinton surrogates (posing as "contributors", such as bankers and lobbyists and people like Howard Dean and Barney Frank) on the air to constantly bash Sanders. We learned more about the DNC protests from alternative news sources and Fox News than we saw on CNN and MSNBC — who had been constantly putting the numbers of super-delegates in our faces in BIG BOLD NUMBERS to discourage Sanders's supporters from turning out to vote ("influencing the election"). The mainstream media did the same thing to Trump with their electoral maps, always telling us that he had "no path forward" to winning the general election, and that it was impossible. Media bias may have actually won the election for Trump, who he constantly called out for their dishonesty (which ironically, Bernie Sanders had also complained about.)

After Trump had won the presidency, Van Jones on CNN used the term "White lash" as one reason given why many people voted for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton (even though she is White and was supported by the KKK in 2008 when she ran against Obama). "Angry White men" (sometimes proceeded by the word "old") was (and still is) always used to define Trump's supporters, even though millions of women (of all colors) also voted for Trump.... more so than for Clinton. Every day it seems we're always hearing about "White men" by the pundits and politicians on CNN and MSNBC as the main reason why Clinton lost. The country is 13% Black but their pundits are 50% Black --- a total mismatch of the actual demographics and race representation of the country.

We also hear a lot about "diversity" and "inclusiveness" — even though (IMHO) we see a greater proportion of minorities (mostly Blacks) in the movies, in sports and in the music business (and also on the cable news shows like CNN and MSNBC) — more so than there are as a percentage of the actual demographics in America. Whites (to the chagrin of many on the "alt-left" and in the mainstream media) still make up a 77% majority of the population in the U.S. — but it appears as though a White-dominated country (as opposed to a Latino, Asian, Middle-Eastern or African dominated country) is somehow "immoral" or "Apartheid" to some people. Is there a war on White people in the U.S. — in a country that founded by White Western Europeans?

NOTE: I supported Bernie Sanders, but most African-Americans voted for Clinton. Was there a "black lash" against Bernie? Did a lot of racist "old angry black men" vote for Hillary Clinton? Look at this latest chart from the Economic Policy Institute that I just received in a newsletter the other day ... http://www.bud-meyers.com/racial-bias.html

It's quite possible that the "White working-class" got sick and tired of hearing about the racist references to Whites, and told the Democrats, Obama, the DNC, the super-delegate and the mainstream media to all go fu*k themselves — because they weren't racist, but were angry for being accused of being racist (hence, the "White lash"). If they all wanted to know why most of these "angry White men" might have voted for Trump, rather than blaming "racism", they might just want to look at these 5 recent charts from the St. Louis Federal Reserve.

(Chart below) Under George W. Bush — shown as a lagging indicator from Bill Clinton's trade deals and Bush's tax cuts — stocks soared and peaked at an all-time record high before the banks had crashed our economy with fraudulent derivatives bundled with sub-prime mortgages. (Bill Clinton also helped deregulate the banks by signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act just before leaving officer in 1999). Since 2013, stock prices (and 401ks) have completely recovered, and the stock indexes for all major stocks have all since hit new all-time record highs (including NASDAQ). But the median weekly pay has barely budged --- not in the past 40 years.

(Chart below) Median weekly wages for the pat 40 years.

(Chart below) Ever since Bill Clinton gave PNTR to China, the labor force has gradually declined.

(Chart below) In 1979 the number of manufacturing jobs and the number of American workers in labor unions had peaked. The slight uptick in recent years are jobs that pay HALF of what they used to when inflation is accounted for. During the auto bailout, in a deal made with the United Auto Workers Union, new workers are paid HALF of what they were previously.

(Chart below) Just since 1997 when Clinton was in office, more than 5 million jobs were lost and more than 67,000 factories have closed. January 1994 was when NAFTA went into effect; October 2000 is when China got PNTR. Whites voted for Trump because he said he wants to re-negotiate all our bad trade deals so the "working-class" (blue-collar workers of ALL races) have more and better paying jobs. Obama (who Hillary Clinton was running for as his 3rd term) had pushed very hard for the TPP trade deal.

The Democrats can't just depend on liberals in the major cities of California and New York (and minorities) to support them. They have to be the party of the "working-class" of ALL races — and get completely away from all "identity politics" and race-baiting and anti-Whiteness. Clinton's loss was not because of racism or "White privilege". Is there "Yellow privilege" in China or "Brown privilege" in Mexico or "Black privilege" in Africa? America is STILL primarily a White nation; but it's nothing to be ashamed of. America is also a diverse nation — and it still allows people from all over the world to legally migrate here. To reject "open borders" is nothing to be ashamed of. But the Democrats and the mainstream media wanted to shame White workers, so many voted for Trump. If they ended the war on White people, instead of accusing them of being a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a misogynist, an Islamophobe, a xenophobe, a homophobe, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-women, a White supremacist, a White nationalist, a Nazi or a fascist --- then maybe in 2020 they might vote for a Democrat again --- that is, if someone like Bernie Sanders was running. (* Personally, as much as I supported Bernie Sanders, he really turned me off with all his personal attacks against Trump: "No Bernie! Extreme vetting is not being anti-Muslim! It's being anti-ISIS!")